Re: The Flood Hoax

From: bivalve (
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 20:09:15 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    >My point is that (1) we don't know what the originals said and (2)
    >to therefore claim inerrancy for them is an empty claim, having no

    Useful must be defined. Claiming inerrancy for the originals
    generally makes more of a claim about God's revelation than about
    understanding the text. Thus, it is not useful in the sense of being
    able to directly consult them. However, it does imply that seeking
    to replicate the original as closely as possible is the way to arrive
    at an authoritative version. This does have practical applications
    for understanding Scripture. For example, it contradicts the KJV
    only view because the KJV includes phrases now considered to be later

    >My KJV-only friend claims inerrancy for a particular text -- the 1611 KJV.<

    The 1611 KJV includes the apocrypha, assorted tables and
    supplementary information, an introduction, etc. Are all these
    inerrant, too? What about the previous translations that were used
    in making the KJV-were they partially inerrant? This is partly an
    expression of incredulity at the merits of the claim, but partly a
    question about just what is included in the claim of authority (have
    they actually seen a 1611 KJV or just later versions, which were
    revised up to the 1700's?), and so I would be interested in any
    specific comments from your sources about such things.

         Dr. David Campbell
         Old Seashells
         University of Alabama
         Biodiversity & Systematics
         Dept. Biological Sciences
         Box 870345
         Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    Droitgate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 16 2002 - 21:42:05 EDT